Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Collective Memory: A methodology

for learning with and from lived
experience
Chris Hansen, Nikki Laird, Needham Yancey Gulley, Corey Johnson

https://www.routledge.com/Collective-Memory-Work-A-Methodology-for-Learning-With-and-From-
Lived/Johnson/p/book/9781138237926

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Consuming media, making men: Using collect ive memory work t o underst and leisure and t he …
Corey Johnson, Dana Kivel

"It 's complicat ed": Collect ive Memories of Trans, Queer and Quest ioning Yout h in High School
Corey Johnson, Maru Gonzalez

"What a man ought t o be, he is far from”: Collect ive meanings of masculinit y and race in media
Corey Johnson
COLLECTIVE MEMORY WORK

The seemingly mundane events of daily life create a complex knowledge base of
lived experience to be explored. But how does one research common experiences
and account for context, culture, and identity? A dilemma arises because experi-
ence is not just embedded in events, but also in the socially constructed meanings
associated with those events.
This book details the philosophical underpinnings, design features and imple-
mentation strategies of collective memory work—a methodology frequently
employed by social justice activists/scholars. Collective memory work can pro-
vide scholars with unique and nuanced ways to solve problems for and with their
participants.
Most importantly, the chapters also detail projects and social justice in action,
analyzing their participants’ real stories and experiences: projects that focus on
LGBTQ youth, #blacklivesmatter activists, white faculty working at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, men’s media consumption and much more.
Written in an engaging and accessible style, readers will come to understand the
potential of their own qualitative research using collective memory work.

Corey W. Johnson is Professor in the Faculty of Applied Health Sciences at

the University of Waterloo. His research focuses on the power relations between
dominant (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) and non-dominant populations in the
cultural contexts of leisure. He currently co-edits Leisure Sciences and has writ-
ten Fostering Social Justice through Qualitative Research: A Methodological Guide
(Routledge 2015).
COLLECTIVE MEMORY
WORK
A Methodology for Learning with
and from Lived Experience

Edited by Corey W. Johnson

First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Corey W. Johnson to be identified as the author of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-23791-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-23792-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-29871-9 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
For Cindy
CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix

PART I

1 The History and Methodological Tradition(s) of Collective

Memory Work 3
Corey W. Johnson, B. Dana Kivel, and Luc S. Cousineau

PART II

2 How Does Media Consumption Contribute to

Understandings of Manhood According to Race and
Sexual Identity? 29
Rudy Dunlap and Corey W. Johnson

3 How do Adults Remember Their Parents’ Reaction to

Gender Nonconformity? 43
Rebecca Eaker, Anneliese A. Singh, and Corey W. Johnson

4 How Can Memories of Enacted Masculinity Create

More Effective Elementary School Teachers? 58
Chris Hansen and Corey W. Johnson
viii Contents

5 What Are the Experiences of White Faculty at

Historically Black Colleges and Universities? 73
Needham Yancey Gulley, Anthony F. Patterson,
and Corey W. Johnson

6 How Do We Sustain Activism?: LGBTQ and Black

People Share Their Positive and Negative Experiences 85
Jemelleh Coes, Needham Yancey Gulley, and Corey W. Johnson

7 Using Collective Memory Work to Create Safer

Schools for Queer and Trans Students: A Story of Love,
Liberation, and Transformation 102
Anneliese A. Singh and Corey W. Johnson

PART III

8 Why Shouldn’t I Do Collective Memory Work?:

Potential Challenges and Pitfalls 119
Nikki Laird and Corey W. Johnson

9 Are You Next?: Common Elements of Collective

Memory Work 129
Corey W. Johnson and Harrison Oakes

List of Contributors 149

Index 154
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout the process of writing this book, a number of people helped along
the way and I owe many a debt of gratitude. First and foremost, my husband
Needham Yancey Gulley. Thank you for your support, patience, encouragement,
and love. Thanks to my besties, Pressley Rankin and Diana Parry, who keep me
honest and humble. A special thank you to my contributing authors whose chap-
ters illustrate a dedication to make the world a better place and to do so by includ-
ing the perspectives of Others, which is often challenging and takes significant
effort. You have really shown up in these projects. It was a real pleasure working
with each of you. Thanks to Luc Cousineau for your attention to detail and run-
ning logistics. Much love goes out to Stephanie Jones and Anneliese Singh, my
writing group of 12 years, thanks for your constant critique, review of drafts, and
your encouragement to write an intellectual, yet accessible book. Lastly, I would
like to share my deep gratitude to B. Dana Kivel for gifting me the introduction
to collective memory work, a methodology that has sustained me in my work for
social justice!
PART I
1
THE HISTORY AND
METHODOLOGICAL TRADITION(S)
OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY WORK
Corey W. Johnson, B. Dana Kivel, and Luc S. Cousineau

She remembered the time that she went to Atlantic City when she was six. She was there
with her grandmother and her great aunt, Kate. She was very excited because she had never
been to the beach before and had never seen such a huge wooden sidewalk (the boardwalk)
and had never seen the ocean. She was amazed by how tall the hotel was and at how tasty
the waffles were that she ate every morning. She also found a secret passageway under the
hotel that took her out to the beach. It was on that same day, a day that she remembers
as being very hot and sticky, that she noticed lots of people, and there were some kids who
looked like her who were wearing shorts and no tops, and others who were wearing one-
piece outfits that covered their bodies. She asked her grandmother about these swimsuits. Her
grandmother said that only boys could wear shorts and no tops and girls had to wear suits
that covered their entire bodies. She was confused because she thought for sure she saw girls
wearing shorts and no tops. She didn’t think too much about it before she went running in
the sand in her swimsuit, her grandmother, then in her early 60s, running behind to keep
up with her.
On the face of it, this story looks like a child’s recollection of her first visit
to the beach with her grandmother and great aunt. You might say that this is a
fairly benign story: “this is a child’s earliest memory of going to the beach and
of seeing children wearing different swimsuits.” Yet, if you were to ask a few
questions about the story, examine the use of language—what was said and what
was not said, the author’s use of verbs and adjectives, and narrative structure—
you might see that there’s another story beyond the individual memory. Indeed,
after a bit more analysis, you might say that this is a story about the ways in
which an innocent leisure context serves as a powerful social force for gender-
ing children; it is a story about what girls are taught about their bodies relative
4 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

to boys, and what girls are taught about being female—‘covering up,’ lack of
freedom, and shame (very potent and powerful messages that convey a status of
‘less than’ and ‘other’).
At the heart of this story and the discussion of its analysis is the ques-
tion of ‘experience’ and what constitutes an individual’s experience. Can an
individual experience be fully and wholly separated from the ideologies that
have shaped an individual? How do individual experiences link to collective,
shared experiences?
The answers to these questions can be found in the process and product of
collective memory work (CMW). Based on an egalitarian approach to inquiry,
collective memory work asks co-researchers (participants and researchers, or
research teams) to recall, examine, and analyze their own memories. Exploring
these memories within a broader cultural context allows them to see how their
individual experiences link to collective, shared experiences of similar and/or
different groups in society (Haug, 1992). Collective memory work is unique as
participants are involved in the generation and analysis of data, which is useful to
the community knowledge base and as a form of conscious raising as they engage
in the process (Kidd & Kral, 2005).

What Are the Basics?

Grounded in social constructionism, the theoretical foundation of collective
memory work rests on the idea that the effects of ideology and discourses (the
metaphorical point where culture and language converge) position us in relation
to a variety of social forces; they subject us. In other words, discourses enable us
to see the ideological positions in cultural institutions and language. Rather than
merely describing or mirroring reality, these discourses constitute and shape our
concepts of identity (Campbell & Kean, 2016).This process encourages and assists
participants to make sense of how, unconsciously and through the internaliza-
tion of taken-for-granted beliefs, they have created social and ideological dimen-
sions of identity, including gender, race, sexual orientation, and other socially
relevant categories.
In collective memory work, the collective engages in a process of discourse
analysis whereby they examine and deconstruct their own use of language in
written narratives as “language is not simply a tool” but rather a means to “con-
vey … the construction of meaning” (Haug, 1997, p. 9). The goal of this decon-
structive analysis is to recognize the complexities obscured by the implied and
tacit knowledge found in conversation, and therefore politicize speech. In the
end, collective memory work seeks to unravel the ways in which individu-
als collaborate with discourse and ideology by implicating themselves in the
social structures that act to oppress them (Haug, 1987, 1992, 1997).This unrave-
ling allows us to see hegemonic identities at work. The result is the collective’s
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 5

articulation of a theory that explains how everyday life is the site where society
reproduces itself. This theory is grounded in the experiences of individuals con-
structed through cultural ideologies by processes of hegemony; in other words,
this method allows for the personal sphere of experience to be articulated in
political terms (Haug, 1987).
Much of the research around ‘experience’ has been focused at the individual
level, with extended analysis from the researcher to societal or ideological con-
texts.While this approach illuminates the life of the individual, it does little to give
wider context to that experience in a real way for the participant of the research.
Sociologist Dorothy Smith (1987) argued for a contextualization of experience
that is based on an examination of social relations and institutional structures.
Smith (1987) asserted that, “Rather than explaining behavior, we begin from
where people are in the world, explaining the social relations of the society of
which we are part, explaining an organization that is not fully present in any one
individual’s everyday experience” (p. 89). She argued that while we may not ‘see’
these institutional structures, they operate at various levels and in ways that influ-
ence our everyday experiences. Experience is never simply a reflection of what
someone has done, felt, or thought—experience is always constructed through
discourses of a priori knowledge and power (Smith, 1987). Similarly, individuals
emerge in and through various ideologies and discourses of power that revolve
around a variety of identity markers including gender, race, and sexuality. Thus,
how can scholars examine individuals and their experiences apart from the ide-
ologies and discourses that shape everyday lives ( Johnson & Samdahl, 2005; Kivel,
2000)? Instead, ‘experiences’ need to be contextualized and theorized in relation
to these important social factors.
It is here where collective memory work can help us fill the void left by
traditional research methodologies. The collaborative nature of the method,
along with a natural inclination toward social justice in its practice, allows this
method not only to contextualize individual experience within a collective
social experience, but to have participants share and grow from their participa-
tion as co-researchers. What follows in this introductory chapter is an overview
of collective memory work, from its inception in the work of Frigga Haug and
her colleagues in the Socialist Women’s Association (Sozialistischer Frauenbund)
in Germany, to its contemporary evolution and application across diverse fields
of study. We begin with the onto-epistemological foundations of the method
(Box 1.1). These foundations allow us to then explore the theoretical devel-
opments and evolutions of the method, including a detailed explanation of
collective memory work and its offshoots in contemporary practice. Then, we
provide a detailed exploration of how collective memory work has been used
in academic research, followed by our own contributions to that collection of
research. Finally, we will share what we hope this book will do, and what you
can expect from the other chapters.
6 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

Onto-Epistemologies Theory

BOX 1.1—ONTO-EPISTEMOLOGIES
How we come to know knowledge, how truth(s) is/are understood, their
expectations for researcher bias or subjectivity, the possibilities for captur-
ing and relaying reality, their understandings of representational logic, and
their intentions for research findings … underlying philosophies of science
that contingently position researchers and their research (Berbary & Boles,
2014, p. 7).

Social Constructionism
Collective memory work is about uncovering ideologies that influence how
individuals see themselves, their relationships with others, and the world. The
practice of collective memory work is therefore grounded in the epistemologi-
cal perspective of social constructionism (Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault, &
Benton, 1992; Kivel & Johnson, 2009; Onyx & Small, 2001). Within the social
constructionist paradigm, meaning is created by the interaction of subject and
object, where both of these are influenced by the social context in which they
exist. Because of this, meaning is not discovered, but is instead constructed by
those involved. Burr (2015) gives a thorough examination of social construc-
tionism in her book on the paradigm and distills the main tenets to five signifi-
cant points:

1. Social constructionism takes a critical approach toward taken-for-granted

knowledge. This form of anti-essentialism challenges assumed understand-
ings of experience and established facts, with particular attention to power
structures and relations that affect the lives of those immersed in those
power relationships.
2. Social constructionism approaches all ways of understanding as historically
and socially relative. By working from the perspective that we construct our
own social and cultural realities based on personal experiences, locality, and
temporality, this paradigm is distinctly anti-realist, insofar as it does not privi-
lege established understandings of what is ‘real’ above the lived experiences of
individuals. By doing so, it acknowledges the experiences and lived realities
of people as true and as legitimate reflections of the multiple truths and reali-
ties that are experienced by individuals.
3. Building on the stance of anti-realism, social constructionism understands
that versions of knowledge become fabricated through daily interactions
between people. This creates for the individual a historically and culturally
specific form of knowledge that extends beyond the strictly personal and
allows for collective understanding, or commonality.
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 7

4. Within social constructionism, knowledge and social action go together.

Because of this, language becomes very important, as language is a pre-
condition for thought, and in itself can be a form of social action.
5. Social constructionism focuses on interaction and process. Beyond simple
personal experiences, personal interactions, as well as the social processes and
power relationships with which individuals are confronted in their daily lives,
are significant influences on their realities.

Seeing what is ‘real’ as a constructed formulation of the interaction between the

‘known’ and the ‘knower’ allows for the existence of a subjectivity of knowl-
edge in which truth, and particularly the truth of experience, is contingent on
the knowledge, experiences, and understanding of the person undergoing the
experience. It is these conditions that allow for the presentation and acceptance
of memories as points of knowledge, and subsequently data in research projects.
It is here that we must discuss the use of memory as data. Although memo-
ries, as the personal reconstructions of events by the individual, are therefore the
embodiment of socially and personally constructed ‘truths,’ Biklen (2004) cau-
tions that memory is a complex and problematic phenomenon that must not be
taken for granted. Biklen’s assertion is based on the fact that within memories and
recollections, we often have gaps, confusion, and problematized recollections that
are reflective of our current states of being and personal predilections at the time
of remembering. There is also a danger, as highlighted by authors like Confino
(1997), that memory, and especially collective memory, becomes depersonalized
and turns out to be the political memory of liberalism, communism, regionalism,
etc.; veiled in the personal account of the individual doing the remembering.
Those elements considered, we believe that memories recollected, discussed, and
analyzed do present important information and support the Personal Narratives
Group’s (1989, cited in Glover, 2003) assertion that “when talking about their
lives, people lie sometimes, forget a lot, exaggerate, become confused, and get
things wrong.Yet they are revealing truths. These truths don’t reveal the past as it
actually was, aspiring to a standard of objectivity. They give us instead the truth
of our experiences” (p. 261). The expression of memories and their subsequent
analysis helps individuals articulate how they have been constructed, and helps
them to identify their own markers of identity (Kivel & Johnson, 2009).This is the
very point made by Haug (1987) and her colleagues in their work developing and
presenting memory work as a method stating, “the very notion that our own past
experience may offer some insight into the ways in which individuals construct
themselves into existing relations, thereby themselves reproducing a social forma-
tion, itself contains an implicit argument for a particular methodology” (p. 34).

(Critical) Interpretivism
Using the same framework for the development and implementation of collec-
tive memory work, authors have also placed this methodological approach into
8 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

slightly different epistemological frameworks. Markula and Friend (2005) are firm
in their assertion that the development of collective memory work derives from a
combination of two interpretivist approaches: hermeneutics and phenomenology.
For Markula and Friend, memories, especially work with memory, are interactive
processes engaging in interactive knowledge construction along the theoretical
path of hermeneutics, while simultaneously engaging with the importance of the
individual like phenomenology is known to do. This individualized knowledge
construction positions the knower and the researcher in interpretive spaces, where
the meaning of the memory rests in how the individual ascribes meaning to the
memory. These interpretations, as valid data, also allow for the critical interpreta-
tion of the context of the memories. In other words, Markula and Friend argue
that the larger meaning of the memory lies in the interpretation of the person
who hears it (someone else or the person remembering). Although the theoreti-
cal contextualization is slightly different than that presented by Kivel and Johnson
(2009) or Onyx and Small (2001), the outcome for the measures of validity and
value of collective memory work are the same, in that the self is considered a
social product mediated by language and text, and memories are the representa-
tion of those selves projected into the past.

Participatory Action Research

Regardless of the epistemological perspective used to guide the research, collec-
tive memory work is a method that falls under the participatory action research
(PAR) methodological umbrella. Reason and Bradbury (2001) define PAR as “a
participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing
in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes” (p. 1). Like the epistemological
viewpoints that underpin it, PAR methodologies acknowledge that the actions of
humans are influenced by social structures and power relationships that they are
exposed to, and this affects both their experiences and their descriptions of those
experiences. The acknowledgment of the social influences on the lives of partici-
pants, and their integration into all elements of the research process, makes PAR
particularly well attenuated for social justice research, where full participation of
research participants is of particular importance. For these same reasons, PAR can
be an important contributor to research that seeks to explore or reflect the lived
experiences of those marginalized by society, or with minoritized viewpoints.
With that objective of PAR in mind, it is important to understand that the
implementation of PAR exists on a continuum, and researcher/participant
engagement can take different forms. Although participant involvement may be
as simple as having input into the final research product or presentation, it may
also include full actualization of the research outcomes by the participants them-
selves, alongside the researchers. Collective memory work has a place on the
PAR continuum because central to this research method is the involvement of
participants in the sharing of stories, collective analysis of group data, building of
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 9

community around shared experience, and social connection. Participants may

even be fully immersed in the development of research products and the dissemi-
nation of research findings to larger audiences (e.g., Singh & Johnson, Chapter 7).

The History and Development of CMW

Collective memory work as a method was originally developed by Frigga Haug
and other authors working as part of a socialist collective in Germany in the 1970s
and 1980s. First published in complex detail in Female Sexualization: A Collective
Work of Memory, the method was a way of working toward “reconstructing sci-
entific work along feminist lines, and that of remodeling Marxism to open up a
place within it for issues concerning women” (Haug, 1987, p. 23). The authors
were heavily involved in women’s movement groups in Germany at the time,
including the Women’s Liberation Movement, as well as being among the found-
ers of the Socialist Women’s Association (Sozialistischer Frauenbund). The devel-
opment of this research method was a working model, and was first published
with the first volume of Frauenformen (Women’s Forms), which was a reflection
on the socialization of women. The collective continued this work and develop-
ment of collective memory work with the publication in 1983 of Sexualisierung:
Frauenformen 2, which was translated into English in 1987 under the title Female
Sexualization: A Collective Work of Memory, with Haug presented as the principal
author at that time. Haug continued to develop the method in her subsequent
work with extensive exploration in her (1992) Beyond Female Masochism: Memory-
Work and Politics. Given the heavy influence of Marx on the socialist and women’s
movements of the 1970s and 1980s in Germany, it is understandable that the
members of the collective would approach research methods and data with the
fundamental concepts of social constructionism in mind. The construction of self
at any given time plays an important part in how events are constructed and how
individuals might remember those memories. Because of this, Haug (1987) and
her colleagues used memories as their initial data; hence, the name of the method.
As a feminist collective interested in the exploration, emancipation, and devel-
opment of women in society, the advance of collective memory work was not
benevolent, but was intended as a way of developing a research methodology
that looked to the depths of women’s experiences, and provided a voice to their
lived experiences contextualized by the social realities of their lives. This focus
on the lived experiences of women, the legitimation of women’s experiences as
valid historical data, and proper representations of reality, created a feminist space
that was designed to be used by women for the development of women’s rights
and possibilities. This mindset around the intention of collective memory work
has been carried forward by some researchers who see this method as a highly
gendered exploration, and designed to be that way (e.g., Fraser & Michell, 2015).
Haug (1987) and her colleagues would not have shied away from that characteri-
zation; in fact, it was enshrined in how they contextualized their own approach
10 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

to this research: “The question we want to raise is thus an empirical one; it is the
‘how’ of lived feminine practice” (p. 33). In the process of answering that ques-
tion, it is possible to reassess and reconstitute the feminine self within current
social practices. The contemporary method presented in this book is grounded
in feminism, like the work of Haug and her colleagues, but also in the failure of
these white women to recognize their racialized identities. The acknowledgment
of these oversights has allowed the method to develop a core attention to inter-
sectionalities, and embody the active engagement of the intersectional nature of
shared experience as it does so.
Haug et al.’s original collective memory work approach was distilled from
developments made by the members of the Socialist Women’s Association as they
attempted to generate a more equitable and representative research methodology,
which would give women a voice within the research and beyond. In order to
accomplish this goal, they reflected on both the role of the participant within the
research, as well as the role of the researcher throughout the course of the research
project. These ideas are detailed in the final chapter, and brought to life in others.
However, it is worth detailing them briefly here.

Role of the Participant in CMW

The most important element of how the participant is viewed in collective mem-
ory work is that each participant must also be seen as a researcher. This creates
a co-researcher relationship between participants and with the research team of
the project. Seen as a way to level the hierarchies that are inherent in academic
research, collective memory work conceives of participants as being collaborators
in the conduct of research.The final chapter of this book provides a more detailed
explanation of the participant role and relationship as co-researcher.

Role of the Researcher in CMW

In order to accomplish the emancipatory goal of a less power-laden research
environment, the researcher or researchers must participate and consent to have
their experiences as part of the research. The researcher must also presume that
all participants in the research, whether lay or academic, are capable of analyzing,
interpreting, and discussing one another’s experiences.
With these roles in mind, the members of the Socialist Women’s Association
laid out a simple formulation for the development of their participatory research
method based on memories. The first element was a collective agreement on a
focus for the memory work. Conceptualized as a trigger (or cue) word or phrase
(Haug, 1987), Haug and her colleagues devised this as a way to limit the breadth
of memories presented by the participants in order to focus the analysis later in
the project’s development. After the establishment of the trigger, the participants
were asked to independently write about the memories elicited by this trigger.
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 11

The writing phase for participants came with guidelines in order to create robust
and useful memory texts. Haug’s four basic rules were as follows: (1) write one to
two pages using the trigger as a focal point; (2) write in the third person and use
a pseudonym—the purpose of this is to anonymize the experience for the reader
and allow for thorough analysis without the layering of pre-conceived under-
standings about the writer; (3) the writing must be as detailed as possible for the
author, including details that might seem mundane or trivial; (4) the memory text
should be a description of the event, which are factual accounts, as void as pos-
sible of personal interpretation or analysis (Box 1.2). The last phase in the process
was that these memories were copied and shared with the entire group. Each of
the memories would be read by the other participants, and each in turn would
be discussed and analyzed by the group as a whole. This group analysis forms the
important participatory crux of the method, as it is the point where the participa-
tion of the group and the collective analysis of the memories of each participant
create a collective memory space, as well as a collective analysis of the meaning of
the memories and memory trigger for the group.

BOX 1.2—HAUG’S FOUR BASIC RULES OF MEMORY

WRITING
1. Write 1–2 pages
2. Write in the third person and use a pseudonym
3. The writing must be as detailed as possible
4. The memory text should be factual and avoid interpretation or analysis

Continued Development of CMW

After the initial development of the method with the Women’s Socialist
Association, Frigga Haug spent time in the mid-1980s as a visiting scholar at
Macquarie University in Sydney Australia (Onyx & Small, 2001). During her
time there, she disseminated the idea of collective memory work to students
and colleagues, and this began a legacy of the use of collective memory work
as a method in Australia and New Zealand. Essential to the development of the
method in Oceania and elsewhere were the evolutions that were generated in
the early 1990s by researchers who had worked with Haug during her time in
Australia. Chief among these are the contributions made by the SPUJJ collective,
five researchers ( June Crawford, Susan Kippax, Jenny Onyx, Una Gault, and Pam
Benton) who embarked on a 4-year study of the social construction of emotion
using collective memory work as the primary method. This work resulted in the
book Emotion and Gender (Crawford et al., 1992), and provides the most robust
development of the method after Haug and her colleagues. Crawford et al. (1992)
maintained the assertions of Haug. (1987) and her colleagues that significant
12 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

events remembered by individuals, and the underlying social structures of those

events, play an important role in the construction of self. As well, the construction
of self at any given time plays an important role in how one remembers.

CRAWFORD, KIPPAX, ONYX, GAULT, AND

BENTON’S (1992)
Procedures for Collective Memory Work
Crawford et al.’s work expands on Haug’s version. Using the initial rules for the
creation of the memory texts, Crawford et al. (1992, p. 49) presented a set of
procedures for the analysis phase of the memory work to be done as a group.

1. Each memory-work group member expresses opinions and ideas about

each written memory in turn.
2. The collective looks for similarities and differences between the memories.
The group members look for continuous elements among the memories
whose relation to each other is not immediately apparent. Each mem-
ber should question particularly those aspects of the events that do not
appear amenable to comparison, without resorting to biography.
3. Each member identifies clichés, generalizations, contradictions, cultural
imperatives, metaphor, etc. This is one way of identifying the markers
of the ‘taken-for-granted’ social explication of the meaning of recur-
ring events.
4. The group discusses theories, popular conceptions, sayings, and images
about the topic, again as a way of identifying the common social expli-
cation of meaning around the topic.
5. The group also examines what is not written in the memories (but that
might be expected to be). Silences are sometimes eloquent pointers to
issues of deep significance but are painful or particularly problematic to
the author.
6. The memory may be re-written.

The analysis phase as described in Crawford et al.’s (1992) work, along with hon-
ing the memory texts themselves, provides the participants in the research group
an opportunity to uncover the common social understandings that come to light
based on the triggers. This allows the analysis to move from reflecting on the
memories of the individuals in the group, to a more cross-sectional understanding
of the social constructs and influences at play for the collective. In essence, this is
an exercise in locating and identifying group meaning from the memory texts,
and for Crawford et al. (1992): “In this way the method is reflexive. It generates
data and at the same time points to modes of action for the co-researchers” (p. 49).
One important factor that is often excluded in memory work is the opportunity
for the memory to be re-written if the group and the participant whose memory
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 13

is in discussion decide that this is merited. This allows for a new version of the
memory to be added to the discursive space around group meaning, potentially
with problematic interpretation removed, or increased specificity, which will
allow the group to generate better understandings based on its content.
Crawford et al. (1992) also discuss a third phase of the collective memory pro-
cess. In this phase, the data gathered from memories, as well as the discussions of
the group process, are intermingled and further theorized. It is in this phase where
the information gathered as part of the project is related back to the academic
theory and literature, which may inform the cultural and social concepts discussed
and analyzed by the participants. This phase of collective memory work is usually
conducted by the co-researchers who are academics and engaged in the produc-
tion of academic scholarship as an individual or collaborative exercise. Although
drafts of the products generated in phase three are sometimes shared with the
participants and opened for discussion with the research group, this is not always
the case. This phase is an important part of collective memory work which takes
place on the spectrum of PAR, and the recursive nature of research findings and
dissemination is an important aspect of the social justice and participatory nature
of this research methodology.

Development of Collective Biography

In Haug et al.’s and Crawford et al.’s collective memory work, there is an impor-
tant focus on the memories shared, and the analytical discussion surrounding
those memories is focused on as factual a description of the event as possible. Both
subscribe to the idea that the writing of the memory should be a description that
is as void as possible of interpretation, explanation, or biography. Some authors
have suggested a different interpretation of committing memory to text, and the
use and necessity of biography. Bronwyn Davies (1992, 1994, 2000) has suggested
a modified version of collective memory work which she calls ‘collective biogra-
phy.’ Davies et al. (2001, p. 169) explain their interpretation of how the method is
meant to function by stating that,

It is ‘biographical’ in that it draws on memories of the lives of particular

individuals. It is ‘collective’ in that the process through which the stories
are told and written and analyzed is one which reveals the ways in which
we were (and are) collectively produced as (sometimes) coherent subjects,
experiencing ourselves as ‘individual’ and ‘autonomous.’ Through the pro-
cesses of talking and listening, of writing and rewriting, the edges that mark
off the texts of ourselves, one from the other, are blurred.

The modified collective memory work presented by Davies, while being mod-
eled on Haug (1987) and her colleagues’ work, adds a phase to the process that
comes before committing memories to text. This initial phase involved a collec-
tive story telling using the same trigger as will be used for the written memories.
14 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

This collective story telling allows for the remembering of lost pieces of memory,
as well as group discussion “in terms of everyday ‘cultural knowledges’” (Davies,
1994, p. 84). Also in Davies’ (1994) model, the fourth phase of the research is not
the generation and theorization by the academic co-participants in the research,
but instead a re-discussion of re-written memories that have been stripped of the
personal and are as close as possible to a version that “might have been true for
anyone living in that particular culture and taking up that culture as their own”
(p. 84). What then must occur in Davies’ collective biography is a post-phase
where the work is contextualized properly for dissemination in the academic
environment if that is indeed the goal of the research.
Davies’ approach has been taken on by many researchers engaged with col-
lective memory work, using and adapting Haug et al.’s concepts with a more
biographical approach to achieve their research goals. Cornforth, White, Milligan,
and Claiborne (2009, p. 69) are particularly direct with their reasons for undertak-
ing this more biographical approach,

In contrast to its earlier origins, collective biography focuses more on dis-

course and power than on the individual and liberation. The associated
‘unsettling’ of humanist versions of memories as interior and personal draws
on the work of Judith Butler (1995, 1997) to interrogate the processes of
‘subjectification’ through which researchers are subjected in their own lives
and, as a result, become participants themselves. One benefit of taking this
embodied, but non-humanist, approach in researching our subjectification
is its potential to remove guilt and pain from individual participants. Since
the focus is on the discourses within which revelations were ‘materialised’
rather than our capacity to express individual agency, the collective was
rendered a safe place within which to share.

Citing a more easily internalized feeling of comfort and trust within the group,
Cornforth and colleagues make a case for the use of collective biography over
Haug’s collective memory work; an approach that has a great deal of traction
within research using this type of method.
Although Haug (1987) and her colleagues conceived the method as an eman-
cipatory exercise for women and women’s voices, the epistemological roots of this
method allow for its application across populations with the use of alternate trig-
ger concepts. As we will explore later in this chapter, collective memory work and
its offshoots have been used in a targeted way with gay and straight men, transgen-
der individuals, marketing research groups, lesbian women, foodies, among others.

Where Has CMW been Used?

Since its beginnings with Haug (1987) and her colleagues, collective memory
work has become an established methodology across a number of research contexts
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 15

and engaging with diverse research topics. Its most significant proliferation has
been in Australia and New Zealand where it has been in regular and consistent
use since the late 1980s. Although a great breadth of research using collective
memory work exists, establishing loose categories helps to put that research into
context, and several such categories emerge: research with women on women’s
and feminist issues; gender and its influence on social and life spaces; collective
memory work research with men and/or surrounding men’s issues; race and the
influence of race on decision-making and personal experience; the use of collec-
tive memory work to approach theoretical thinking in diverse fields; and critiques
and reflections on the use of collective memory work.
Owing to the fact that collective memory work was conceived as a feminist
methodology, it seems appropriate that the largest sub-category of studies using
this method is research on issues specifically affecting women, focusing specifically
on the role of feminist theory and praxis in the lives of academic and non-aca-
demic women. Cornforth et al. (2009) used collective memory work to explore
the role of feminist practice for academics engaged with a major institutional
merger. Using Davies’ collective biography, this group of academics explored
their early conceptions of ‘good girl’ students, contextualized in their current
lives as academic women. Susanne Gannon (2015), along with giving a thorough
description of the development and implementation of collective biography, used
the method in the mapping of the subjugation of girls in fiction literature, and the
complexities of that subjugation and representation for female readers of fiction.
Justine Mercer (2013) used collective memory work to explore the experiences
of young female academics experiencing the rejection of papers and proposals for
the first time. Although Mercer engages with this method out of an admitted
curiosity to explore its potential in this type of research area, she concludes that it
has value in research. In this same vein, Kern, Hawkins, Al-Hindi, and Moss (2014)
used collective biography to explore expressions of joy in academic work, and
they express that their choice of this method was greatly influenced by its desire
to make visible the process of ‘selving’ from past experiences.
Coralie McCormack (1998) and Jennie Small (1999) have both used collec-
tive memory work to interrogate women’s leisure and tourism experiences, and
how leisure and tourism experiences manifest differently for women. Elina Oinas
(1999) chose to use collective memory work as her method as it “is especially
useful for research into health and body issues due to its potential to offer multi-
layered accounts with a variety of different narrative modes, compared with in
depth interviews” (p. 267). Her work on young women’s perspectives on the
dissemination of information about menstruation by public health officials in
Finland illuminated not only the experiences of the young women, but also the
potential failures of the educational system employed by the public health offi-
cials. Jennifer Cole (2005) also focused on health and body issues in her work
on the politics of reproduction in Africa. Using collective memory work, she
explored the role of biological and social structural influence on women’s views
16 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

of reproduction, and how past social/emotional/physical violence affects these

opinions for participants in the research.
Irene Ryan (2009) expounded the role that collective memory work can play
in illuminating previously lost or ignored ways of knowing in her work with
older women field hockey players. Using collective memory work in this con-
text, Ryan describes how the juxtapositions and intersectionalities of gender, age,
sport, and story are brought to light. Lynn Burnett (2010) brought together young
lesbian-defined women to explore their experiences of the intersection of their
lesbianism and careers. Burnett, like Ryan, expresses how the use of collective
memory work allows for the complexities of identity and social spaces to show
through in the research context.
This broad swath of literature using collective memory work with women
is only a sample of what is available. We could also explore: the experience of
women leaders (Boucher, 1997a, 1997b; Boucher & Smyth, 1996); body/land-
scape relations (Davies, 2000); women’s sexuality (Farrar, 1999); women’s writ-
ing (Gannon, 1999; Kamler, 1996); women and mathematics ( Johnston, 1995,
1998; Webber, 1998); women’s speaking positions and feminine subjectivities
(Stephenson, Kippax, & Crawford, 1996; Stephenson, 2001); women and AIDS
prevention (Kippax, Crawford, Waldby, & Benton, 1990); older women, health,
and relationships (Mitchell, 1991, 1993, 2000); and heterosexuality and desire
(Davies, 1992; Rocco, 1999).
Although work with women and on women’s issues is by far the most signifi-
cant body of collective memory work literature, other researchers have expanded
its use to different populations, including men, transgender, and mixed groups.
Working especially with men, Kivel and Johnson (2009), Johnson, Richmond, and
Kivel (2008), Dunlap and Johnson (2013), and Johnson and Dunlap (2011) have
worked with groups to explore the role of media in the constructions of mascu-
linity, representations of masculinity in men’s lives, including racialized, heterosex-
ual, and gay men. Using collective memory work, these projects used reflections
on media exposure to help illuminate how those exposures affect personal visions
and embodiments of masculinity and what meanings might be associated with
those embodiments. Bob Pease (2000a, 2000b) has also used collective memory
work with groups of men. Pease has used this method to explore the roles and
lasting effects of father–son relationships on participants, as well as the (re)con-
struction of heterosexual subjectivities in the memories of men in his groups.
Research using collective memory work has also engaged with diverse groups
of research participants when examining issues of gender and gender spaces.
Johnson, Singh, and Gonzales (2014) explore youth experiences in high school
using collective memory work with transgender, queer, and questioning students.
This work looked at participant experiences of gender and gender identity in
school, as well as the influence of understanding and existing attitudes on those
experiences. Connor, Newton, Dennis, and Quarshie (2004), as well as Purohit and
Walsh (2003), used collective memory work to reflect on participant experiences
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 17

and memories surrounding gender in schools. Connor and colleagues used

collective biography in their exploration of the embodiment of gender spaces in
school and the experiences of participants navigating these difficult issues in their
youth. Purohit and Walsh, in a two-phase study, used collective memory work
with an entire middle school class to explore the effects of gendered discourse
on the lives and beliefs of young people. In the second phase of the study, they
limited discussion to a girls-only group, to both contrast the larger group expe-
rience and to broaden and deepen the questions brought forward by the work.
All three of these studies highlight questions about gender and gendered spaces
within schools, and the role that schools have to play in mediating these spaces.
Christine Ingleton (1995) used collective memory work to explore the intersec-
tions of gender and learning with Australian university students, uncovering col-
lective narrative descriptions of troubled inter-relationships between being both
caring and competitive, as well as pressures to both comply with and rebel against
gendered expectations as students.

Reflections on the Development of CMW

As with most methods, collective memory work has undergone substantial
reflection since the 1980s. As discussed earlier, Crawford et al. (1992) pro-
vided significant development to the implementation of the method and set
the guideposts for many researchers who would follow, and Davies, Dormer,
Honan, and McAllister’s (1997) work would move the method in a slightly dif-
ferent direction with collective biography. Its implementation across a variety
of research domains in the 1990s, especially in Australia and New Zealand,
prepared it for re-theorization 15 years later. Onyx and Small (2001) gave an
overview of this process in their work, and along with describing the develop-
ment of the method to this point, provided several points for further reflection;
including troubling the collective subject, and lingering issues about the phases
and rules of the data collection within the method. That same year, Susanne
Gannon (2001) troubled how collective memory work was represented, espe-
cially in academic texts. Using creative analytic practice, she suggested rep-
resentation that took the form of poetic or creative embodiment of research
findings, in order to help avoid some of the essentialism inherent in a single-
person representation of collective findings. Fine and Beim (2007) reflected on
interactionist approaches to collective memory work saying that it “is a living
concept, linked to the behaviours and responses of social actors who generate
meaning” (p. 5). They proposed three analytical questions that should be asked
of the method: (1) Should we conceptualize collective memory as process or
product? (2) What makes a collective memory effective: its inherent qualities or
its cultural promotion and reception? (3) How is a collective memory transmit-
ted and manifested—through media or interpersonal diffusion? Markula and
Friend (2005) cast memory work as an interpretive methodology and applied its
18 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

use to sport management. They established it as a viable method in the field, but
also raised questions about its practicality. Frost et al. (2012) provide a reflection
on their experiences implementing the method itself. Along with reflecting on
some of the difficulties of engaging with this method as a group, they reinforce
the structure of collective memory work as laid out by Crawford et al. (1992),
and that the ultimate goal of the method is “shifting one’s perception of one’s
experience through the appropriation of discourses that emerged during analy-
sis” (Frost et al., 2012, p. 245).
Some authors have critiqued memory work more generally, discussing the
inherent fallibility of relying on memory for data. Alon Confino (1997) and
David Berliner (2005) provide critique of the use of memory in research from
historical and anthropological perspectives, respectively. For both Confino and
Berliner, memory has value in the cultural history and social construction of time
and place, but it has some serious deficiencies in the way that it can represent
factual and true information in the lives of individuals and society as a whole. Sari
Knapp Biklen (2004) echoes that worry by troubling how the memories of adults
can be used to accurately explore the experiences and feelings of youth. Although
performative memory has strong links to identity, there is danger in the adult
identity having so strong an influence over the recollection of the memory that
it might lose validity in seeking the desired information. Aaron Beim (2007) also
suggests an important cognitive factor in the use of memory insofar as there is a
conflation between the production of memory and memorable experiences, and
the reception of the social and cultural phenomena that contribute to their crea-
tion. His work presents not only a justification for his worry about the conflation
of these two processes, but also a model for the cognitive mechanisms of collective
memory. Snelgrove and Havitz (2010), in their work on retrospective methods in
leisure studies, provide discussion and critique on the reliability and validity of
the method. Their critique is focused on concerns with poor memory recall and
that reconstructions of people’s pasts are often shown to be largely inaccurate, but
do suggest that collective memory work might be a viable alternative to personal
narratives as it maintains the political.What each of these critiques has in common
though, is the presupposition that memories and some kind of objective ‘fact’
can be reconciled, illuminating their onto-epistemological perspectives on what
is ‘real’ and ‘factual’ (see Johnson & Oakes, Chapter 9, for further exploration of
onto-epistemological issues in CMW).
Wulf Kansteiner (2002) provided what is a thorough methodological critique
of CMW. In his analysis of the state of the methodology, as well as its conceptual
underpinnings, Kansteiner (2002, p. 180) comes to three significant conclusions:

1. Collective memory work studies have not yet sufficiently conceptualized col-
lective memories as distinct from individual memory. As a result, the nature
and dynamics of collective memories are frequently misrepresented through
facile use of psychoanalytical and psychological methods.
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 19

2. Collective memory studies have also not yet paid enough attention to the
problem of reception both in terms of methods and sources.Therefore, works
on specific collective memories often cannot illuminate the sociological base
of historical representations.
3. Some of these problems can be addressed by adopting and further develop-
ing the methods of media and communication studies, especially regarding
questions of reception. For this purpose we should conceptualize collective
memory as the result of the interaction among three types of historical fac-
tors: the intellectual and cultural traditions that frame all our representations
of the past, the memory makers who selectively adopt and manipulate these
traditions, and the memory consumers who use, ignore, or transform such
artifacts according to their own interests.

Alongside these conclusions, Kansteiner argues that some texts that have used
memory work have made significant errors in conceptualization when they have
used and placed memories in an individualized context; an approach that ignores
the socially constructed nature of memories created in time and space.

What Are Our Experiences with Collective Memory Work?

As a newly minted assistant professor at the University of Northern Iowa, Dana
worked with many outstanding colleagues in the then Women’s Studies Program,
one of whom knew Frigga Haug. This colleague invited Haug to campus to give
a talk and to conduct a workshop about collective memory work. Dana attended
her talk and participated in her workshop. This was in 1997 and while happy to
have finished the dissertation the year before, Dana was struggling to find dif-
ferent ways to ‘do’ research so as not merely to be engaged in ‘representing’ the
voices of individuals who were part of marginalized groups—women, young
people who were lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT), etc. Dana was also
a new faculty member and had the latitude to ‘try’ new strategies and methods.
Indeed, Dana was in that period of her life where Kuhn (2012), in the Structure
of Scientific Revolution, argued that those who are early in their careers (the young
and naïve) and those at the end of their careers (less young and more cynical
who have nothing to lose) are precisely the ones who can actually help to shift
old paradigms.
After Haug’s workshop, Dana realized that this method of writing stories in
the third person, each participant sharing their stories and each person contrib-
uting to the research, was, at the time, quite a radical departure from graduate
school and early career research-related work. In graduate school, Dana landed
on doing identity research, but in reality wanted to explore how heterosexuality
functioned in ways that diminished the lives of young people who identified as
LGBT. Dana had come to graduate school having been an activist and co-founder
of an LGBT youth group in San Francisco, the Lavender Youth Recreation and
20 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

Information Center (LYRIC).Yet, Dana’s research focus in graduate school had

been on making visible the lives and experiences of LGB youth in leisure set-
tings. The focus on ‘representation’ was what was needed in the mid-1990s. The
crisis of representation and legitimation was in full debate. But, while living
in Iowa and as a result of Haug’s work, Dana realized that collective memory
work had the potential to shift how we think about research—the idea of col-
laborating with participants as co-researchers—but it also had the potential to
make visible the connections between individual experiences, ideologies, and
social structures.
Collective memory work has the potential to support participants to peel back
layers of hegemonic identities such that collaborators could begin to discuss how
they have come to see themselves, their relationships with others, and the world.
The opportunity to engage with the questions: Who am I?; Why do I believe
what I do?; How do I fit into society?; also makes this research methodology an
incredibly powerful tool for social justice work. Haug’s work was, in part, about
consciousness-raising and that aspect of the work—raising awareness and con-
sciousness so that the work of social justice and social change begins with the
individual—continues to be critical to research today. Further, Haug’s ability to
bridge the gap between agency and structure by creating a method in which the
individual links their experience to ideologies and hegemonies, as well as social
structures, further helps to bridge the gap in research between the researcher and
the researched, and theory and practice.
In Corey’s scholarly inquiry, he has deployed collective memory work as a
means of contextualizing research and personal experiences in a way that reflects
the larger social and political constructs at play in the generation and develop-
ment of personal experiences. As a social justice researcher, he has used collective
memory work, along with other research methodologies (i.e., ethnography and
narrative inquiry), to illuminate experiences that are often neglected in academic
research, and highlight cultural and social inequities through those research pro-
jects. Throughout, he has maintained a commitment to participant empower-
ment, which along with the use of PAR and collaborative methodologies like
collective memory work, has included ensuring that participants in his research
have continued input and agency throughout the entire research and dissemina-
tion process.
Although maintaining the centrality of the methodology’s commitment to the
exposure and unraveling of social power structures that affect our lived experi-
ences and recollections, Corey has parted from Haug’s original insistence that
collective memory work is used only by/with women. His research has been with
groups of men, as well as transgender, queer, and questioning young people, while
still interrogating the discourses that are implicit in our lives. In practice, this has
meant the exploration of a variety of research topic areas, and the use of a variety
of theoretical perspectives to help illuminate these power structures. Johnson et
al. (2008) is a discussion of the constructions of race and masculinity in popular
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 21

media, which focused on four main themes of (1) media perpetuates violent/
aggressive expectations of men and women as objects; (2) men’s leisure is marked
by racial stereotypes; (3) men use media to construct racial identity; and (4) media
can be used as a catalyst for understanding white male privilege. This work also
engaged the participant-researchers in discussion about the ‘crisis of representa-
tion’ of masculinity, and the meaning of being a racialized man. Kivel and Johnson
(2009) used collective memory work to explore the relationship between media
exposure, constructions of masculinity for youth, and male youth violence. The
participant-researchers shared memories that demonstrated constructions of mas-
culinity and personhood that were underpinned by ideals of heroism, violence,
and machismo, and provided an opportunity to critically analyze and discuss
these constructions with peers. Kivel, Johnson, and Scraton (2009) is a call for
the broadening of the scope of leisure research to be more inclusive of research
that uses individual experience, but contextualizes that experience within broader
discourses of ideology and power. Using race as a contextualizing social construct,
we proposed collective memory work as a potential method to help alleviate the
individualized research tendencies within leisure sciences and (re)theorize leisure
experiences at the societal level. Johnson and Dunlap (2011) and Dunlap and
Johnson (2013) work through the development of masculinities and sexual iden-
tity through the media memories and experiences of gay and straight men, respec-
tively. For gay men, media experiences and constructions of masculinities took on
two roles: opening the closet door and mainstreaming gay identity. For the par-
ticipant-researchers in this project, media portrayals of masculinity and gay men
were instructive in shaping their understandings of their own masculinity, but also
provided valuable exposure to heteronormative discourse and possible avenues for
resistance. For straight men (Dunlap & Johnson, 2013), media exposure was also
instructive about masculinity, although in this case they were primarily learning
about the hierarchical nature of masculinities within the social discourse. This
meant that actions and ways of being were judged to fit into hierarchical levels of
masculine performance, and judged accordingly. Johnson et al. (2014) undertook a
significant project with transgender, queer, and questioning youth about how they
interpreted and made meaning out of sexual orientation as they moved through
high school. Pairing collective memory work with PAR, participant-researchers
were included in all aspects of this project, which produced, among other items, a
documentary film. Through the experiences of the youth involved in this project,
a host of institutional and discursive difficulties were uncovered that affect the
safety and personal wellbeing of participants.Versions of these projects are articu-
lated in the chapters that follow, as are other important projects where Corey has
served as the methodologist part of a research team.
And what about Luc? Well, the future Dr. Cousineau is just beginning to get
his feet wet with collective memory work and his introduction, like your own,
means developing a comprehensive understanding of the ontological, epistemo-
logical, and theoretical underpinnings of CMW; the history and development
22 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

of the work; those studies that have been done using CMW; what CMW is not;
the methodological nuances of designing and executing the study; and moving
the work from data generation/analysis to presentation, publication, and knowl-
edge translation.

What Will This Book Cover? General

Goals and Organization
There are nine chapters in the book divided into three parts.You’re wrapping up the
introduction to collective memory work describing its history, differentiating it from
other methodologies (grounded theory, phenomenology, narrative inquiry, collective
biography, etc.). In Part II, chapters focus on CMW ‘in action’ and show scholars
how they can adopt and/or adapt the methods to suit the purposes of their research
endeavor. Each chapter will also focus pedagogically on a specific feature of the
methodology.The chapters are ordered sequentially in terms of the typical execution
of the research design. In addition, these chapters simultaneously account for inter-
esting and relevant content (unique projects) related to employing the methodology
for the purposes of social justice. In Part III, we alert scholars to the importance of
CMW as one of many appropriate methodologies and encourage them to consider
overall ‘fit,’ challenges and rewards of its use.We will discuss the increasing utility and
popularity of collective memory work as a qualitative research methodology, chart
directions for its future, and discuss significant challenges and pitfalls.The final chap-
ter will review the key methodological features and provide detailed justification
and instruction on how to employ the methodology. Using a conversation between
Corey and a PhD student looking to use CMW in their dissertation, this chapter will
give a set of guides for implementing CMW, and a discussion about the important
practical and theoretical considerations when undertaking this method.
As qualitative and collective methodologies continue to undergo robust devel-
opment across diverse fields of study, continued engagement with their roots and
developmental trajectories is paramount to their continued success. In the chapters
that follow, you will find the resources required to engage with and exercise the
use of collective memory work in your own research, as well as the tools to con-
tinue its development. We hope you find this book and collective memory work
methodology valuable and meaningful as we continue to explore and value the
experiences and perspectives of the individuals we engage in research alongside.

References
Beim, A. (2007). The cognitive aspects of collective memory. Symbolic Interaction, 30(1),
7–26.
Berbary, L. A., & Boles, J. C. (2014). Eight points for reflection: Revisiting scaffolding for
improvisational humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5), 401–419.
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 23

Berliner, D. C. (2005). The abuses of memory: Reflections on the memory boom in

anthropology. Anthropological Quarterly, 78(1), 197–211.
Biklen, S. K. (2004). Trouble on memory lane: Adults and self-retrospection in researching
youth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(5), 715–730.
Boucher, C. (1997a). How women socially construct leadership in organizations: A study
using memory work. Gender, Work and Organization, 4(3), 149–158. doi:10.1111/1468-
0432.00031
Boucher, C. (1997b). The old fashioned ways are still the best: Using consciousness raising as a tool
for assisting minority leaders develop emotional resistance. Paper presented at the 5th Women
in Leadership Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Boucher, C., & Smyth, A. (1996). Managers in waiting:The significant early experience of women
managers. Paper presented at the 4th Women in Leadership Conference, Edith Cowan
University, Perth, Australia.
Burnett, L. (2010). Young lesbians explore careers and work landscapes in an Australian
culture. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 14(1), 36–51.
Burr,V. (2015). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Campbell, N., & Kean, A. (2016). American cultural studies: An introduction to American culture.
New York: Routledge.
Cole, J. (2005). Foreword: Collective memory and the politics of reproduction in Africa.
Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 75(1), 1–9.
Confino, A. (1997). Collective memory and cultural history: Problems of method. The
American Historical Review, 102(5), 1386–1403.
Connor, D. J., Newton, R. M., Pennisi, A. C., & Quarshie, A. A. (2004). Tales of body/space
invasions in school. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 495–508.
Cornforth, S.,White, J., Milligan, A., & Claiborne, L. B. (2009).The personal is still political:
Collective biographical memory work and feminist practice. Women’s Studies Journal,
23(2), 68–76.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender:
Constructing meaning from memory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, B. (1992). Women’s subjectivity and feminist stories. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty
(Eds.), Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience (pp. 53–76). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin
University.
Davies, B. (2000). (In)scribing body/landscape relations. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Davies, B., Dormer, S., Gannon, S., Laws, C., Rocco, S., Taguchi, H. L., & McCann, H.
(2001). Becoming schoolgirls: The ambivalent project of subjectification. Gender and
Education, 13(2), 167–182.
Davies, B., Dormer, S., Honan, E., & McAllister, N. (1997). Ruptures in the skin of silence:
A collective biography. Hecate, 23(1), 62–79.
Dunlap, R., & Johnson, C. W. (2013). Consuming contradiction: Media, masculinity and
(hetero) sexual identity. Leisure/Loisir, 37(1), 69–84.
Farrar, P. D. (1999). Relinquishment and abjection: A semanalysis of the meaning of losing a baby
to adoption. University of Technology, Sydney.
Fine, G.A., & Beim,A. (2007). Introduction: Interactionist approaches to collective memory.
Symbolic Interaction, 30(1), 1–5.
Fraser, H., & Michell, D. (2015). Feminist memory work in action: Method and practicalities.
Qualitative Social Work, 14(3), 321–337. doi:10.1177/1473325014539374
24 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

Frost, N. A., Eatough,V., Shaw, R.,Weille, K. L.,Tzemou, E., & Baraitser, L. (2012). Pleasure,
pain, and procrastination: Reflections on the experience of doing memory-work
research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(3), 231–248.
Gannon, S. (1999). Writing as a woman: Autobiographical/collective and transgressive texts of self
(unpublished master’s thesis). James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Gannon, S. (2001). (Re)presenting the collective girl:A poetic approach to a methodological
dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 787–800.
Gannon, S. (2015). Collective biography and memory work: Girls reading fiction. English
in Australia, 50(3), 61–68.
Glover,T. D. (2003).Taking the narrative turn:The value of stories in leisure research. Loisir
et societe/Society and Leisure, 26(1), 145–167.
Haug, F. (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory. London:Verso.
Haug, F. (1992). Beyond female masochism: Memory-work and politics. London:Verso.
Haug, F. (1997). Memory-work as a method of social science research: A detailed rendering of
memory-work method. Retrieved from http://www.friggahaug.inkrit.de/documents/
memorywork-researchguidei7.pdf
Ingleton, C. (1995). Gender and learning: Does emotion make a difference? Higher
Education, 30(3), 323–335.
Johnson, C. W., & Dunlap, R. (2011). “They were not drag queens, they were playboy
models and bodybuilders”: Media, masculinities and gay sexual identity. Annals of Leisure
Research, 14(2–3), 209–223.
Johnson, C. W., Richmond, L., & Kivel, B. D. (2008). “What a man ought to be, he is
far from”: Collective meanings of masculinity and race in media. Leisure/Loisir, 32(2),
303–330.
Johnson, C. W., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). “The night they took over”: Misogyny in a
country-western gay bar. Leisure Sciences, 27(4), 331–348.
Johnson, C.W., Singh,A.A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014).“It’s complicated”: Collective memories
of transgender, queer, and questioning youth in high school. Journal of Homosexuality,
61(3), 419–434.
Johnston, B. (1995). Mathematics: An abstracted discourse. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),
Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp. 226–234). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Johnston, B. (1998). Maths and gender: Given or made. In P. Gates (Ed.), Proceedings of
Conference International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 207–213), 6–11
September. Centre for the Study of Mathematics Education, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham.
Kamler, B. (1996). From autobiography to collective biography: Stories of ageing and loss.
Women and Language, 19(1), 21–26.
Kansteiner,W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective
memory studies. History and Theory, 41(2), 179–197.
Kern, L., Hawkins, R., Al-Hindi, K. F., & Moss, P. (2014). A collective biography of joy in
academic practice. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(7), 834–851.
Kidd, S.A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(2), 187–195.
Kippax, S., Crawford, J., Waldby, C., & Benton, P. (1990). Women negotiating heterosex:
Implications for AIDS prevention. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13(6)
533–542.
Kivel, B. D. (2000). Leisure experience and identity:What difference does difference make?
Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 79–81.
 History and Methodological Tradition of CMW 25

Kivel, B. D., & Johnson, C. W. (2009). Consuming media, making men: Using collective
memory work to understand leisure and the construction of masculinity. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41(1), 109–133.
Kivel, B. D., Johnson, C. W., & Scraton, S. (2009). (Re)theorizing leisure, experience and
race. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(4), 473–493.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Markula, P., & Friend, L. A. (2005). Remember when … Memory-work as an interpretive
methodology for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 442–463.
McCormack, C. (1998). Memories bridge the gap between theory and practice in women’s
leisure research. Annals of Leisure Research, 1(1), 37–50.
Mercer, J. (2013). Responses to rejection: The experiences of six women early career
researchers in the education department of an English university. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 38, 125–134.
Mitchell, P. F. (1991). Memory-work: A primary health care strategy for nurses working
with older women. In Proceedings of the National Nursing Conference on Science, Reflectivity
and Nursing Care: Exploring the Dialect (pp. 48–52). Melbourne.
Mitchell, P. F. (1993). Bridesmaids revisited: Health, older women and memory-work (unpublished
master’s thesis). Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Mitchell, P. F. (2000). Letting your (self) go: Older women use memory-work to explore the impact
of relationships on experiences of health (unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of
Nursing, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Oinas, E. (1999).Young women’s perspectives on public health knowledge and adolescent
bodies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 27(4), 267–272.
Onyx, J., & Small, J. (2001). Memory-work:The method. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 773–786.
Pease, B. (2000a). Beyond the father wound: Memory‐work and the deconstruction
of the father–son relationship. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
21(1), 9–15.
Pease, B. (2000b). Reconstructing heterosexual subjectivities and practices with white
middle-class men. Race, Gender & Class, 7(1), 133–145.
Personal Narratives Group (1989). Truths. In Personal Narratives Group (Eds.),
Interpreting women’s lives: Feminist theory and personal narratives. Indianapolis, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Purohit, K. D., & Walsh, C. (2003). Interrupting discourses around gender through collective
memory work and collaborative curriculum research in middle school. Sex Education:
Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(2), 171–183.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice.
London: Sage.
Rocco, S. (1999). One day my prince will come: The discursive production the desire for (hetero)
sexual marriage (master’s thesis). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates.
Ryan, I. (2009). Profitable margins: The story behind “our stories.” Journal of Management
and Organization, 15(5), 611–624.
Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching women’s tourist experiences.
Tourism Management, 20(1), 25–35.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Snelgrove, R., & Havitz, M. E. (2010). Looking back in time: The pitfalls and potential of
retrospective methods in leisure studies. Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 337–351.
26 Johnson, Kivel, and Cousineau

Stephenson, N. (2001). If parties are battles what are we? Practising collectivity in memory-
work. In J. Small & J. Onyx (Eds.), Memory-work: A critique (pp. 42–53). Working paper
series. Sydney: School of Management, University of Technology.
Stephenson, N., Kippax, S., & Crawford, J. (1996).You and I and she: Memory-work, moral
conflict and the construction of self. In S. Wilkinson (Ed.), Feminist social psychologies:
International perspectives (pp. 182–200). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Webber, V. (1998). Dismantling the altar of mathematics: A case study of the change from
victim to actor in mathematics learning. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 8(1), 9–22.
References

1 Chapter 1: The History and

Methodological Tradition(s) of Collective
Memory Work

Beim, A. (2007). The cognitive aspects of collective

memory. Symbolic Interaction, 30(1), 7–26.

Berbary, L. A., & Boles, J. C. (2014). Eight points for

reflection: Revisiting scaffolding for improvisational
humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5),
401–419.

Berliner, D. C. (2005). The abuses of memory: Reflections

on the memory boom in anthropology. Anthropological
Quarterly, 78(1), 197–211.

Biklen, S. K. (2004). Trouble on memory lane: Adults and

self-retrospection in researching youth. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10(5), 715–730.

Boucher, C. (1997a). How women socially construct

leadership in organizations: A study using memory work.
Gender, Work and Organization, 4(3), 149–158.
doi:10.1111/1468- 0432.00031

Boucher, C. (1997b). The old fashioned ways are still the

best: Using consciousness raising as a tool for assisting
minority leaders develop emotional resistance. Paper
presented at the 5th Women in Leadership Conference, Edith
Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

Boucher, C., & Smyth, A. (1996). Managers in waiting: The

significant early experience of women managers. Paper
presented at the 4th Women in Leadership Conference, Edith
Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

Burnett, L. (2010). Young lesbians explore careers and work

landscapes in an Australian culture. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 14(1), 36–51.

Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.

Campbell, N., & Kean, A. (2016). American cultural studies:

An introduction to American culture. New York: Routledge.

Cole, J. (2005). Foreword: Collective memory and the

politics of reproduction in Africa. Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, 75(1), 1–9.
Confino, A. (1997). Collective memory and cultural history:
Problems of method. The American Historical Review,
102(5), 1386–1403.

Connor, D. J., Newton, R. M., Pennisi, A. C., & Quarshie,

A. A. (2004). Tales of body/space invasions in school.
Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 495–508.

Cornforth, S., White, J., Milligan, A., & Claiborne, L. B.

(2009). The personal is still political: Collective
biographical memory work and feminist practice. Women’s
Studies Journal, 23(2), 68–76.

Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P.
(1992). Emotion and gender: Constructing meaning from
memory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davies, B. (1992). Women’s subjectivity and feminist

stories. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.),
Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience
(pp. 53–76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom

practice. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.

Davies, B. (2000). (In)scribing body/landscape relations.

Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Davies, B., Dormer, S., Gannon, S., Laws, C., Rocco, S.,
Taguchi, H. L., & McCann, H. (2001). Becoming schoolgirls:
The ambivalent project of subjectification. Gender and
Education, 13(2), 167–182.

Davies, B., Dormer, S., Honan, E., & McAllister, N. (1997).

Ruptures in the skin of silence: A collective biography.
Hecate, 23(1), 62–79.

Dunlap, R., & Johnson, C. W. (2013). Consuming

contradiction: Media, masculinity and (hetero) sexual
identity. Leisure/Loisir, 37(1), 69–84.

Farrar, P. D. (1999). Relinquishment and abjection: A

semanalysis of the meaning of losing a baby to adoption.
University of Technology, Sydney.

Fine, G. A., & Beim, A. (2007). Introduction:

Interactionist approaches to collective memory. Symbolic
Interaction, 30(1), 1–5.
Fraser, H., & Michell, D. (2015). Feminist memory work in
action: Method and practicalities. Qualitative Social
Work, 14(3), 321–337. doi:10.1177/1473325014539374

Frost, N. A., Eatough, V., Shaw, R., Weille, K. L., Tzemou,

E., & Baraitser, L. (2012). Pleasure, pain, and
procrastination: Reflections on the experience of doing
memory-work research. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
9(3), 231–248.

Gannon, S. (1999). Writing as a woman:

Autobiographical/collective and transgressive texts of self
(unpublished master’s thesis). James Cook University,
Townsville, Australia.

Gannon, S. (2001). (Re)presenting the collective girl: A

poetic approach to a methodological dilemma. Qualitative
Inquiry, 7(6), 787–800.

Gannon, S. (2015). Collective biography and memory work:

Girls reading fiction. English in Australia, 50(3), 61–68.

Glover, T. D. (2003). Taking the narrative turn: The value

of stories in leisure research. Loisir et societe/Society
and Leisure, 26(1), 145–167.

Haug, F. (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of

memory. London: Verso.

Haug, F. (1992). Beyond female masochism: Memory-work and

politics. London: Verso.

Haug, F. (1997). Memory-work as a method of social science

research: A detailed rendering of memory-work method.
Retrieved from http://www.friggahaug.inkrit.de/documents/
memorywork-researchguidei7.pdf

Ingleton, C. (1995). Gender and learning: Does emotion make

a difference? Higher Education, 30(3), 323–335.

Johnson, C. W., & Dunlap, R. (2011). “They were not drag

queens, they were playboy models and bodybuilders”: Media,
masculinities and gay sexual identity. Annals of Leisure
Research, 14(2–3), 209–223.

Johnson, C. W., Richmond, L., & Kivel, B. D. (2008). “What

a man ought to be, he is far from”: Collective meanings of
masculinity and race in media. Leisure/Loisir, 32(2),
303–330.
Johnson, C. W., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). “The night they
took over”: Misogyny in a country-western gay bar. Leisure
Sciences, 27(4), 331–348.

Johnson, C. W., Singh, A. A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). “It’s

complicated”: Collective memories of transgender, queer,
and questioning youth in high school. Journal of
Homosexuality, 61(3), 419–434.

Johnston, B. (1995). Mathematics: An abstracted discourse.

In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Equity in mathematics
education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp.
226–234). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Johnston, B. (1998). Maths and gender: Given or made. In P.

Gates (Ed.), Proceedings of Conference International
Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 207–213),
6–11 September. Centre for the Study of Mathematics
Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

Kamler, B. (1996). From autobiography to collective

biography: Stories of ageing and loss. Women and Language,
19(1), 21–26.

Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A

methodological critique of collective memory studies.
History and Theory, 41(2), 179–197.

Kern, L., Hawkins, R., Al-Hindi, K. F., & Moss, P. (2014).

A collective biography of joy in academic practice. Social
& Cultural Geography, 15(7), 834–851.

Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory

action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2),
187–195.

Kippax, S., Crawford, J., Waldby, C., & Benton, P. (1990).

Women negotiating heterosex: Implications for AIDS
prevention. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13(6)
533–542.

Kivel, B. D. (2000). Leisure experience and identity: What

difference does difference make? Journal of Leisure
Research, 32(1), 79–81.

Kivel, B. D., & Johnson, C. W. (2009). Consuming media,

making men: Using collective memory work to understand
leisure and the construction of masculinity. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41(1), 109–133.
Kivel, B. D., Johnson, C. W., & Scraton, S. (2009).
(Re)theorizing leisure, experience and race. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41(4), 473–493.

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions

(4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Markula, P., & Friend, L. A. (2005). Remember when …

Memory-work as an interpretive methodology for sport
management. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 442–463.

McCormack, C. (1998). Memories bridge the gap between

theory and practice in women’s leisure research. Annals of
Leisure Research, 1(1), 37–50.

Mercer, J. (2013). Responses to rejection: The experiences

of six women early career researchers in the education
department of an English university. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 38, 125–134.

Mitchell, P. F. (1991). Memory-work: A primary health care

strategy for nurses working with older women. In
Proceedings of the National Nursing Conference on Science,
Reflectivity and Nursing Care: Exploring the Dialect (pp.
48–52). Melbourne.

Mitchell, P. F. (1993). Bridesmaids revisited: Health,

older women and memory-work (unpublished master’s thesis).
Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Mitchell, P. F. (2000). Letting your (self) go: Older women

use memory-work to explore the impact of relationships on
experiences of health (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
School of Nursing, Flinders University of South Australia,
Adelaide.

Oinas, E. (1999). Young women’s perspectives on public

health knowledge and adolescent bodies. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, 27(4), 267–272.

Onyx, J., & Small, J. (2001). Memory-work: The method.

Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 773–786.

Pease, B. (2000a). Beyond the father wound: Memory‐work and

the deconstruction of the father–son relationship.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
21(1), 9–15.

Pease, B. (2000b). Reconstructing heterosexual

subjectivities and practices with white middle-class men.
Race, Gender & Class, 7(1), 133–145.

Personal Narratives Group (1989). Truths. In Personal

Narratives Group (Eds.), Interpreting women’s lives:
Feminist theory and personal narratives. Indianapolis, IN:
Indiana University Press.

Purohit, K. D., & Walsh, C. (2003). Interrupting discourses

around gender through collective memory work and
collaborative curriculum research in middle school. Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(2), 171–183.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action

research: Participative inquiry and practice. London:
Sage.

Rocco, S. (1999). One day my prince will come: The

discursive production the desire for (hetero) sexual
marriage (master’s thesis). American University of Sharjah,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.

Ryan, I. (2009). Profitable margins: The story behind “our

stories.” Journal of Management and Organization, 15(5),
611–624.

Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching

women’s tourist experiences. Tourism Management, 20(1),
25–35.

Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A

feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Snelgrove, R., & Havitz, M. E. (2010). Looking back in

time: The pitfalls and potential of retrospective methods
in leisure studies. Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 337–351.

Stephenson, N. (2001). If parties are battles what are we?

Practising collectivity in memorywork. In J. Small & J.
Onyx (Eds.), Memory-work: A critique (pp. 42–53). Working
paper series. Sydney: School of Management, University of
Technology.

Stephenson, N., Kippax, S., & Crawford, J. (1996). You and

I and she: Memory-work, moral conflict and the
construction of self. In S. Wilkinson (Ed.), Feminist
social psychologies: International perspectives (pp.
182–200). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Webber, V. (1998). Dismantling the altar of mathematics: A

case study of the change from victim to actor in
mathematics learning. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 8(1),
9–22.
2 Chapter 2: How Does Media Consumption
Contribute to Understandings of Manhood
According to Race and Sexual Identity?

Connell, M. (1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles, CA:

University of California Press.

Dunlap, R., & Johnson, C. W. (2013). Consuming

contradiction: Media, masculinity, and (hetero) sexual
identity. Leisure/Loisir, 37(1), 69–84.

Haug, F. (1987). Female sexualization: A work of collective

memory (E. Carter, Trans.). London: Verso Publishing.

Haug, F. (1992). Beyond female masochism: Memory-work and

politics. London: Verso Books.

Haug, F. (1998). Memory work—Guidelines for research.

Unpublished manuscript.

Johnson, C. W., & Dunlap, R. (2011). “They were not drag

queens, they were playboy models and bodybuilders”: Media,
masculinities and gay sexual identity. Annals of Leisure
Research, 14(2–3), 209–223.

Johnson, C. W., Richmond, L., & Kivel, B. D. (2008). “What

a man ought to be, he is far from”: Collective meanings of
masculinity and race in media. Leisure/Loisir, 32(2),
303–330.

Kivel, B. D., & Johnson, C. W. (2009). Consuming medial,

making men: Using collective memory work to understand
leisure and the construction of masculinity. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41(1), 109–133.
3 Chapter 3: How do Adults Remember Their
Parents’ Reaction to Gender
Nonconformity?

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s

position and reflexivity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
doi:10.1177/1468794112468475

Ehrensaft, D. (2012). From gender identity disorder to

gender identity creativity: True gender self child
therapy. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(3), 337–356.
doi:10.1080/0091 8369.2012.653303

Fawcett, B. & Hearn, J. (2004). Researching others:

Epistemology, experience, standpoints and participation.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7,
201–218. doi: 10.1080/13645570210163989

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N.,

Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative
research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52(2), 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

Jones, R. (2012). Discourse analysis: A resource book for

students. New York: Routledge.

Menvielle, E. (2012). A comprehensive program for children

with gender variant behaviors and gender identity
disorders. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(3), 357–368.
doi:10.1080/0 0918369.2012.653305.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Subjectivity and trustworthiness in

qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.

Pillow, W. S. (2003) Confession, catharsis, or cure?

Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power
in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.
doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635

Riley, E., Clemson, L., Sitharthan, G., & Diamond, M.

(2013). Surviving a gender-variant childhood: The views of
transgender adults on the needs of gender-variant children
and their parents. Journal of Sex & Martial Therapy, 39(3),
241–263. doi:10.1080/00926 23x.2011.628439

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and

interpersonal relationships. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology:
A study of a science (pp. 184–256), Vol 3. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C. R. (1967). The therapeutic relationship and its

impact: A study of psychotherapy with schizophrenics.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1986). Carl Rogers on the development of the

person-centered approach. Person-Centered Review, 1(3),
257–259.

Rogers, C. R. (2001). The foundations of the

person-centered approach. Education, 100(2), 98–107.

Singh, A. A. (2012). Transgender youth of color and

resilience: Negotiating oppression, finding support. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 68, 1–13.

Singh, A. A. (2016). Award for Distinguished Early Career

Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest:
Anneliese A. Singh. American Psychologist, 71(8), 752–754.

Singh, A. A., & Dickey, l. M. (2016). Implementing the APA

guidelines on psychological practice with transgender and
gender nonconforming people: A call to action to the field
of psychology. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 3(2), 195–200.

Singh, A. A., Hays, D. G., & Watson, L. (2011). Strategies

in the face of adversity: Resilience strategies of
transgender individuals. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 89(1), 20–27.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00057.x

Singh, A. A., & McKleroy, V. S. (2011). “Just getting out

of bed is a revolutionary act”: The resilience of
transgender people of color who have survived traumatic
life events. International Journal of Traumatology, 17(2),
34–44. doi:10.1177/1534765610369261

Singh, A. A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2013). “It’s already

hard enough being a student”: Developing affirming college
environments for trans youth. The Journal of LGBT Youth,
10(3), 208–223.

Singh, A. A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2014). “I am my own

gender”: Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 92(2), 208–218.

Trinh, Minh-Ha (1991). When the moon waxes red:

Representation, gender and cultural politics. New York:
Routledge.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960a). Ego distortion in terms of true

and false self. In D. W. Winnicott (Ed.), Maturational
processes and the facilitating environment (pp. 140–152).
Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960b). The theory of the parent–infant

relationship. In D. W. Winnicott (Ed.), Maturational
processes and the facilitating environment (pp. 37–55).
Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Wyss, S. E. (2004). “This was my hell”: The violence

experienced by gender non-conforming youth in US high
schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 17(5), 709–730. doi:10.1080/0951839042000253676

Wyss, S. E. (2013). Crisis, acceptance, and advocacy: A

supportive guide for parents of trans and gender
nonconforming youth: A review of the Transgender child.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 10, 163–168.
doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.717832

Zucker, K. J. (2008). Children with gender identity

disorder: Is there a best practice? Neuropsychiatrie De
l’Enfance Et De l’Adolescence, 56(6), 358–364.
doi:10.1016/j.neurenf. 2008.06.003

Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., Ben-Dat, D., Ho, C.,

Johnson, L., & Owen, A. (2003). Psychopathology in the
parents of boys with gender identity disorder. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
42(1), 2–4. doi:10.1097/00004583-200301000-00003

Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., Lowry Sullivan, C. B.,

Kuksis, M., Birkenfeld-Adams, A., & Mitchell, J. N.
(1993). A gender identity interview for children. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 61, 443–456.

Zucker, K. J., Wood, H., Singh, D., & Bradley, S. J.

(2012). A developmental, biopsychosocial model for the
treatment of children with gender identity disorder.
Journal of Homosexuality, 59(3), 369–397.
4 Chapter 4: How Can Memories of Enacted
Masculinity Create More Effective
Elementary School Teachers?

Arnold, J. W. (1965). Baritone in the kindergarten.

Instructor, 75(4), 28, 66.

Benton DeCorse, C. J., & Vogtle, S. P. (1997). In a complex

voice: The contradictions of male elementary teachers’
career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 1(48), 37–46.

Brosius, P. (2005, November 7). Round table introductory

speech. In Iraq War Teach-In. University of Georgia,
Athens, GA.

Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the

classroom teacher: Research, praxis and pedagogy. New
York: Routledge.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Coulter, R. P., & McNay, M. (1993). Exploring men’s

experiences as elementary school teachers. Canadian
Journal of Education, 18(4), 398–413.

Foster, T., & Newman, E. (2005). Just a knock back?

Identity bruising on the route to becoming a male primary
school teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
11(4), 341–358.

Freire, P. (1970/1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.

Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

Goodman, J., & Kelly, T. (1988). Out of the mainstream:

Issues confronting the male profeminist elementary school
teacher. Interchange, 2(19), 1–14.

Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching.

Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Haug, F. (Ed.). (1983/1987). Female sexualization: A

collective work of memory. New York: Verso.

Haug, F. (2000). Memory work: The key to women’s anxiety.

In S. Radstone (Ed.), Memory and methodology (pp.
155–178). New York: Berg.

Johnson, C. W. (2013). Feminist masculinities: Inquiries

into leisure, gender, and sexual identity. In V. J.
Freysinger, S. M. Shaw, K. A. Henderson, & M. D. Bialeschki
(Eds.), Leisure, women, and gender (pp. 245–257). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Johnson, C. W., & Dunlap, R. J. (2009, October). Collective

memories of men’s sexual identities and media consumption.
[Abstract]. Abstracts from the 2009 Leisure Research
Symposium. Asburn, VA: National Recreation and Park
Association.

Johnson, C. W., Richmond, L., & Kivel, B. (2008). “What a

man ought to be, he is far from”: Exploring collective
meanings of masculinity and race in media. Leisure/Losir,
32(2), 1–28.

Johnson, T. S. (2005). The “problem” of bodies and desires

in teaching. Teaching Education, 16(2), 131–149.

Kimmel, M. S. (2017). Angry white men: American masculinity

at the end of an era. New York: PublicAffairs.

Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (1989). Introduction. In M.

S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 1–13).
New York: Macmillan.

Kivel, B., & Johnson, C. W. (2009). Consuming media, making

men: Using CMW to understand leisure and the construction
of masculinity. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1),
105–129.

Murgatroyd, R. (1955). A man among six year olds. Childhood

Education, 32(3), 132–135.

Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E.,

Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of
Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School
Libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and
Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Snyder, D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman, C. M. (2004). The digest

of education statistics, 2003. Washington: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Triplett, L. (1968). Elementary education—A man’s world?

The Instructor, 78(3), 50–52.

Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2008). Who is teaching? Does it
matter? In M. C. Smith, F. Nemieser, J. D. McIntyre, & K.
E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education: Enduring questions in changing context (pp.
404–423). New York: Routledge.
5 Chapter 5: What Are the Experiences of
White Faculty at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities?

Arroyo, A. T., Palmer, R. T., & Maramba, D. C. (2016). Is

it a different world? Providing a holistic understanding
of the experiences and perceptions of non-Black students
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,
18(3), 360–382.

Carter, J. D., & Fountaine, T. P. (2012). An analysis of

White student engagement at public HBCUs. Educational
Foundations, 26(2–4), 109–136.

Closson, R. B., & Hall, B. (2015). When the majority is the

minority: White graduate students’ social adjustment at a
Historically Black University. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(1), 28–42.

Foster, L. (2001). The not-so-invisible professors: White

faculty at Black colleges. Urban Education, 36(5),
611–629.

Henry, W. J., & Closson, R. B. (2010). White students at

the Historically Black University: Toward developing a
critical consciousness. Multicultural Education, 17(2),
13–19.

Johnson, B. J., SaFiya, D., & Johnson T. E. (2015). From

another perspective: Perceptions of White faculty of the
racial climate at Black colleges. In T. N. Ingram, D. F.
Greenfield, & J. D. Carter (Eds.), Exploring issues of
diversity within HBCUs (pp. 207–224). Charlotte, NC: IAP
Information Age Publishing.

Johnson, C. W., & Parry, D. (2015). Fostering social

justice through qualitative inquiry. Los Angeles, CA:
Routledge.

Louis, D. A. (2015). Cross-cultural peer mentoring: One

approach to enhancing White faculty adjustment at Black
colleges. International Journal of Multicultural Education,
17(2), 1–19.

Peterson, D. R., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). White, male, and

“minority”: Racial consciousness among White male
undergraduates attending a Historically Black University.
Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 34–58.
Wei, F.-Y., & Hendrix, K. G. (2017). Hidden diversity of
teacher–student interaction in Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. Negro Educational Review, 67(1–4), 33–53.
6 Chapter 6: How Do We Sustain Activism?:
LGBTQ and Black People Share Their
Positive and Negative Experiences

Haug, F. (1992a). Beyond female masochism: Memory-work and

politics (R. Livingstone, Trans.). London: Verso.

Haug, F. (1992b). Feminist writing: Working with women’s

experiences. Feminist Review, 42 (Autumn), 16–32.

Johnson, C. W., & Parry, D. (2015). Fostering social

justice through qualitative inquiry. Los Angeles, CA: Left
Coast Press.

Lawson, H. (2015). Introducing participatory action

research. In H. A. Lawson, J. M. Jurkowski, C. T. Bozlak,
J. C. Caringi, & L. Pyles (Eds.), Participatory action
research (pp. 22–46). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lupton, D. (1994). Food, memory and meaning: The symbolic

and social nature of food events. The Sociological Review,
42(4), 664–685.
7 Chapter 7: Using Collective Memory Work
to Create Safer Schools for Queer and
Trans Students: A Story of Love,
Liberation, and Transformation

Johnson, C. W., Singh, A. A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). “It’s

complicated”: Collective memories of LGBTQQ youth. Journal
of Homosexuality, 61(3), 419–434.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C., &

Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015 National School
Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New
York: GLSEN.

Singh, A. A., & Dickey, l. M. (2016). Implementing the APA

guidelines on psychological practice with transgender and
gender nonconforming people: A call to action to the field
of psychology. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 3(2), 195–200.

Singh, A. A., Hays, D. G., & Watson, L. (2011). Strategies

in the face of adversity: Resilience strategies of
transgender individuals. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 89(1), 20–27.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00057.x

FIGURE 7.1 Unsafe schools.

Singh, A. A., & Johnson, C. W. (Producers), Kaneria, R., &

Kaneria, J. (Filmmakers). (2009). “Be there for me”:
Collective memories of LGBTQ youth in high schools
[Documentary]. Retrieved from

Singh, A. A., Johnson, C. W. (Producers), Roberts, J., &

Sykes, A. (Filmmakers). (2010). “We exist”: Collective
memories of transgender youth in Georgia high schools
[Documentary]. Retrieved from

Singh, A. A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2014). “I am my own

gender”: Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 92(2), 208–218. doi:10.1002/
j.1556-6676.2014.00150.x

Singh, A. A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2013). “It’s already

hard enough being a student”: Developing affirming college
environments for trans youth. The Journal of LGBT Youth,
10(3), 208–223. doi:10.1080/19361653.2013.800770

Singh, A. A., & McKleroy, V. S. (2011). “Just getting out

of bed is a revolutionary act”: The resilience of
transgender people of color who have survived traumatic
life events. International Journal of Traumatology, 17(2),
34–44. doi:10.1177/1534765610369261

Singh, A. A. (2013). Transgender youth of color and

resilience: Negotiating oppression, finding support. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 68, 690–702.

Singh, A. A. (2016). Award for Distinguished Early Career

Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest:
Anneliese A. Singh. American Psychologist, 71(8), 752–754.
8 Chapter 8: Why Shouldn’t I Do
Collective Memory Work?: Potential
Challenges and Pitfalls

Berbary, L. A., & Boles, J. C. (2014). Eight points for

reflection: Revisiting scaffolding for improvisational
humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36,
401–419.

Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Ethics, research

regulations, and critical social science. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research (pp. 81–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haug, F. (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of

memory. London: Verso.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing

ethnography, second edition. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
9 Chapter 9: Are You Next?: Common
Elements of Collective Memory Work

Berbary, L. A. (2014). A very basic review packet for

humanist qualitative research [Course handout]. Waterloo,
ON: University of Waterloo, REC 673.

Berbary, L. A., & Boles, J. C. (2014). Eight points for

reflection: Revisiting scaffolding for improvisational
humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5),
401–419. doi:10.1080/ 01490400.2014.012169

Coes, J., Gulley, N. Y., & Johnson, C. W. (in press). How

do we sustain activism?: LGBTQ and Black people share
their positive and negative experiences. In C. W. Johnson
(Ed.), Collective memory work: A methodology for learning
with and from ‘others’ (Chapter 6). London: Routledge.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research:

Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Dunlap, R., & Johnson, C. W. (in press). How does media

consumption contribute to understandings of manhood
according to race and sexual identity?. In C. W. Johnson
(Ed.), Collective memory work: A methodology for learning
with and from ‘others’ (Chapter 2). London: Routledge.

Eaker, R., Singh, A., & Johnson, C. W. (in press). How do

adults remember their parents’ reaction to gender
nonconformity?. In C. W. Johnson (Ed.), Collective memory
work: A methodology for learning with and from ‘others’
(Chapter 3). London: Routledge.

Hansen, C., & Johnson, C. W. (in press). How can memories

of enacted masculinity create more effective elementary
school teachers?. In C. W. Johnson (Ed.), Collective memory
work: A methodology for learning with and from ‘others’
(Chapter 4). London: Routledge.

Johnson, C. W. (2009). Writing ourselves at risk: Using

self-narrative in working for social justice. Leisure
Sciences, 31, 483–489. doi:10.1080/01490400903199815

Laird, N., & Johnson, C. W. (in press). Why shouldn’t I do

collective memory work? Potential challenges and pitfalls.
In C. W. Johnson (Ed.), Collective memory work: A
methodology for learning with and from ‘others’ (Chapter
8). London: Routledge.
Pillow W. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure?
Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power
in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 175–196.
doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635

Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to

theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Inc.